Babel-17 – Samuel R. Delany

But for ‘house’ you have to end up describing ‘… an enclosure that creates a temperature discrepancy with the outside environment of so many degrees, capable of keeping comfortable a creature with a uniform body temperature of ninety-eight-point-six…’

A SF story, in words of Robert A. Heinlein, is one with “… conditions … [that] in some respect, [are] different from here-and-now … [but] an essential part of the story. The problem itself—the “plot”—must be a human problem … created by, or indispensably affected by, the new conditions … [and] it must not be at variance with observed facts …”.

The world of Babel-17 with the prevalence of inter-galactic travel, presence of incorporeal entities with human functions, and ability of humans to alter their bodies into grotesque forms that exist today, if at all, in the imaginations of some make it a entirely different world from ours. That a journey, ostentatiously taken to solve a critical problem, turns into a exploration of self and one’s relationship with the world is a genuinely human problem. Yet, nothing connects this journey of fears and wishes, and of understanding and acceptance, to the world that is created. And it is in creating this connection – using language, that is Samuel R. Delany’s greatest achievement in this novel.

Language, in Babel-17, is not used just a tool, to explore and uncover hidden recesses of the human mind; it is its main theme. In particular, Delany grapples with the role of language in human cognition and expression. In short, are we limited in our understanding of things and concepts because of our language? Or is there a transform from any one language to another, albeit in a convoluted way. Technically, linguists call this problem the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. The plot relies on this hypothesis being true and Babel-17 starts off with a discussion of how a language differs from a code, implicitly implying that this hypothesis holds true. Yet, when Delany creates the definition of a house in a language that has temperature as the cognitive base, he moves away from the hard version of this hypothesis – something that has been proven to be false. This softening of position to create consistence with known scientific facts while ensuring that enough remains to lend credence to the plot is Delany’s most difficult endeavour.

And yet, the over-concentration on language results in an underdeveloped world. Delany flies through this new world, scarcely pausing to reflect, observe and describe. As a result, there is a strong dissonance between the two created worlds – the once inside the protagonists head, where language rules and the physical one outside of space travel and ghosts. Far too often the external world feels like an infringement on the first one rather than a natural extension. Also, the mental journey overshadows the physical journey, making the narrative extremely jarring.

Babel-17 is not a great novel. And yet, it failures are because of faults and impatience in execution, and not because of the smallness of ideas or being conservative in conception.

The Long Halloween – Jeph Loeb

This town isn’t big enough for two homicidal maniacs. – Joker

Yet, turning every page of The Long Halloween, one wonders how can there be two sane people in Gotham City. Not because the pages are filled with almost every single villain (Joker, Poison Ivy, Scarecrow, Mad Hatter, The Riddler, Calendar Man) in the Batman canon. And not because the depressing atmosphere of Gotham seems to seep out of the pages to engulf the reader. Sanity can seem precious because, The Long Halloween shows in excruciating detail and with great humanity the journey into insanity and it becomes difficult not to identify with that journey.

On the surface, The Long Halloween is a classic whodunit mystery. Someone starts murdering people – underworld criminals – across Gotham. Only, the murders happen on holiday’s and the killer is dubbed, ingeniously, Holiday. No one knows who this Holiday is, but everyone seems intent on finding him/her: criminals to see who is stealing their thunder, Carmine Falcone to extract revenge for the death of this men and relatives, Batman to stop future killings, and Jim Gordon and Harvey Dent to uphold the spirit of the law. And this search and the elusive nature of Holiday takes it’s toll – psychological and physical – on all.

But maybe on none more than District Attorney Harvey Dent – the white knight of Gotham. One who carries the mantle of the cleaning up the mess – in a clean way. With every page turned, this mantle becomes a little heavier and it’s gloss a little duller. Dent needs help, but has no one to ask it from. He needs support, but his family life is crumbling faster than his psyche. Chasing ghosts in the back alleys of Gotham, he loses himself in the shadows. He becomes Two Face; the court mishap just bringing him out in open.

In stark contrast to Dent is Batman, sharing the same obsession against crime and fighting the very same demons as Dent. But with no obligation other than his goal, he can fight without his hands tied unlike Dent. the shadows of Gotham’s streets do not scare for he is no more than a shadow himself. The Long Halloween, in the end justifies Batman’s hood and cape, for without it Gotham would lose it’s Dark Knight much like it’s White Knight and add another homicidal maniac in it’s ranks.

Inglourious Basterds – Quentin Tarantino

… around this time you could ask whether you’re real or fictitious. I, however, think that’s too easy, so I won’t ask that yet. Okay, my native land is the jungle. I visited America, but the visit was not fortuitous to me, but the implication is that it was to somebody else.

Multiple storylines. Mindless violence. Mexican standoffs. Long-winded monologues. Obscure cinematic references. Inglourious Basterds has all the above hallmarks of a Tarantino movie and more. However what makes Tarantino unique amongst directors is, not his using these hackneyed themes but, his ability to take this kitsch and turn it into a narrative that is novel and exciting. And it is in this construction of a riveting narrative that Inglourious Basterds spectacularly fails. And to think of it, this might just be Tarantino’s most linear script!

Tarantino’s skill as a film maker has always been to create strong point/s of identification for the audience with the primary characters on screen. With a point of identification established, the cliches suddenly get backstory – a context – and cease to be the ones heard before (Kill Bill, Reservoir Dogs). And with a point of identification established, the audience is on a roller coaster ride and not just watching one.

Also in a certain way he makes his movies as puzzles – not in whodunnit terms but in how-did-it-happen terms. Throughout the movie, he is in charge of giving you the clues, and as audience your job is to figure the puzzle out in the smallest number of clues (Pulp Fiction). What this again enables him to do is to pull the audience into the narrative, become involved in it and immerse themselves in it.

The plot and setting of Inglourious Basterds makes both of the above difficult (maybe nigh impossible) to achieve. WW 2 and Holocaust is a theme much written about and  much filmed, but rarely in playful terms. By treating this setting in his usual obliquely humorous fashion, Tarantino suddenly alienates the viewer. And while the major protagonists are all fictional, the presence of the historical figures just does not allow a viewer to slip into the boots of Aldo Raine or Colonel Lander. And in failing to get this involvement running, Inglourious Basterds fails.

And yet, all of the is not to say it is unwatchable. This is Tarantino’s most ambitious work since Pulp Fiction. There are still enough moments in the movie where one can only say (in retrospect), “how the hell did he do that”. And then most importantly the failure of Inglourious Basterds is due to ambition and not mediocrity.